Bug#1030307: RFS: posixsignalmanager/0.3-2 -- posix signal handling for qt
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "posixsignalmanager": * Package name : posixsignalmanager Version : 0.3-2 Upstream contact : Martin Hostettler * URL : https://github.com/textshell/posixsignalmanager * License : BSL-1.0 * Vcs : [fill in URL of packaging vcs] Section : libs The source builds the following binary packages: libposixsignalmanager0a - posix signal handling for qt - shared library libposixsignalmanager-dev - posix signal handling for qt - headers To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/posixsignalmanager/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/posixsignalmanager/posixsignalmanager_0.3-2.dsc Changes since the last upload: posixsignalmanager (0.3-2) unstable; urgency=medium . * debian/patches: Add upstream patch: Build fixes for non x86 architectures. We hope that we can now fix the broken architectures in the debian ci for our packages. Regards, -- Christoph Hueffelmann
Bug#1030307: RFS: posixsignalmanager/0.3-2 -- posix signal handling for qt
The name of the package is bad. So long for a library, change the name. Regards, Mezgani Ali +212 6 44 17 94 51 ali.mezg...@nativelabs.ma https://wiki.debian.org/mezgani ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Active member of IETF, GNU, Debian, FreeBSD and Kernel. ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ ⠈⠳⣄⠀ > On 02/02/2023, at 15:10, Christoph Hueffelmann wrote: > > Package: sponsorship-requests > Severity: normal > > Dear mentors, > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "posixsignalmanager": > > * Package name : posixsignalmanager > Version : 0.3-2 > Upstream contact : Martin Hostettler > * URL : https://github.com/textshell/posixsignalmanager > * License : BSL-1.0 > * Vcs : [fill in URL of packaging vcs] > Section : libs > > The source builds the following binary packages: > > libposixsignalmanager0a - posix signal handling for qt - shared library > libposixsignalmanager-dev - posix signal handling for qt - headers > > To access further information about this package, please visit the following > URL: > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/posixsignalmanager/ > > Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: > > dget -x > https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/p/posixsignalmanager/posixsignalmanager_0.3-2.dsc > > Changes since the last upload: > > posixsignalmanager (0.3-2) unstable; urgency=medium > . > * debian/patches: Add upstream patch: Build fixes for non x86 architectures. > > > We hope that we can now fix the broken architectures in the debian ci for our > packages. > > Regards, > -- > Christoph Hueffelmann >
Bug#1030307: RFS: posixsignalmanager/0.3-2 -- posix signal handling for qt
[upstream here] On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:13:41 +0100 Norwid Behrnd wrote: > > So long for a library, change the name. I don't see why library may not have a descriptive name instead of a short and cryptic one. And the debian package name follows the name of the library it contains. Which is by its pkg-config name: PosixSignalManager Yes, some may find that ugly and long, but it's the libraries name, and discussions on if that name is good should be held upstream. I'm not aware of any debian policy the package name might violate. Also this is a upload to package that recently entered testing but did not build for various release architectures due to tests build on amd64 centric assumptions, which should now be fixed. I think it's important to try to help debian to offer packages on as many architectures as feasable. > > It might be better to rename the package after bookworm became stable. > Given how near we are in the release cycle to the freeze for new packages to enter testing i agree that **if** the name needs changing it is more feasable to do that targeting bookworm+1, but i still think that the name is fine.
Bug#1030307: RFS: posixsignalmanager/0.3-2 -- posix signal handling for qt
Hi Christoph, Please do not fold the upstream PR into one patch file. That makes tracking it very hard. Thanks, Bastian
Bug#1030307: RFS: posixsignalmanager/0.3-2 -- posix signal handling for qt
Hello Bastian, I am very sorry about that. I will do that next time. Thank you for your time and effort. Christoph Am 04.02.23 um 18:07 schrieb Bastian Germann: Hi Christoph, Please do not fold the upstream PR into one patch file. That makes tracking it very hard. Thanks, Bastian
Bug#1030307: RFS: posixsignalmanager/0.3-2 -- posix signal handling for qt
Hello Bastian, sorry, now I understand. I have split the patches, cherry-pick the commits from upstream and reupload it. Thank you for your time and effort. Christoph
Re: Bug#1030307: RFS: posixsignalmanager/0.3-2 -- posix signal handling for qt
> So long for a library, change the name. It might be better to rename the package after bookworm became stable. My intent is to rename `ruby-mdl` into `markdownlint`; like `posixsignalmanager`, it is a package accepted into `testing` a couple of days ago. The recommendation I received was to stick with the odd name *for now*, and to defer attempts to rename the package, or else face the possibility that neither one form (i.e., old name, or new name) would ship.[1] Because the soft-freeze of `bookworm` merely is a few days ahead (February 12).[2] With these options ahead, I choose to stick (for now) with the name already introduced. It might be the safer choice for Christoph, too. Regards, Norwid [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2023/01/msg00058.html [2] https://release.debian.org/testing/freeze_policy.html